dontamend.com

[Natoma]

And you haven't addressed the fact that religion does not rule this government. Nor was it designed to

Hey! Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing with you regarding the seperation of church and state. I'm all for that. And I agree that "Norwas it designed to". But there is an argument to be made that history is filled with examples of religion and the US laws and policys.

I'd still like to know what those 1,049 federal statutes are. Got the Link?

History is certainly filled with examples of religion and US laws and policies. However, in many cases those laws and policies are revoked or challenged if they are still on the books. As I said, laws have passed that were unconstitional upon creation, and later on revoked, even if decades later.

As for having the link that actually shows all of the statutes, I don't know. But the GAO did a survey and the following link are their findings. They found at least 1049 federal statutes that were conferring special marital rights.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

The following quote is from an AP newswire which has been quoted by various websites, both pro-gay and anti-gay:

As part of the follow-up to the legislation [referring to DOMA - Natoma], a survey was conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) to determine how many provisions of Federal law might implicate marital status. The GAO found at least 1,049 such provisions, and then confessed to being overwhelmed.

Some of these special status rights include social security and related programs, housing and food stamps, veterans benefits, taxation employment benefits, immigration and naturalization, trade and commerce and intellectual property, crimes and family violence, loans and guarantees on said loans, etc.

 

[Dave H]

!? Filing seperately does NOT help.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/tax/prepare/5228.asp

Married filing separately is not the same thing as two people filing separately.

edit: crap. left out the NOT

Right. I stand corrected, then.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Been at the Jersey Shore this past weekend, and certainly don't have time to digest this whole thread now, but to go way back and respond to the last direct response to me:

Sorry. Can't do it. I don't have the same respect for your relationship.

And that, in elegant summation, is the problem. Lack of respect.

Bingo.

It's YOUR lack of respect for my opinion that is the issue. I respect your right to your lifestyle, and also I resepect your opinion on the mater.

I do NOT respect the lifestyle itself.

Can you not make a simple distinction here?

I don't respect the KKK, nor do I particularly respect Satanic Cults either...though I do repect their right to have those views.

You, on the other hand, for all the "be tolerant of others" rhetoric you constantly bark to others, show a definitive lack of respect and tolerance for others' points of view.

I'm still in disbelief that you and Vince actually compared my relationship with Eddie to beastiality.

Then you quite amazingly STILL have little comprehension concerning what that debate was actually about.

I suppose now you're going to go off on a rant about how I am "equating" the Klan and Satanic Cults to Homosexuality?

That people can possess that much contemptuous bile. It's truly disconcerting sometimes. But we press on nonetheless.

My, Natoma. Sounds like you have a considerable lack of respect here, doesn't it?

It's times like this I wish you could actually meet eddie and me and see us live together.

Why? I know other homosexual couples that love one another. What makes you so special?

Sometimes people say the things they do because they're seeing a monolithic idea instead of the actual human beings.

Sometimes, people say the things they do because that's what they truly believe in despite your objections to the contrary.

(Edited to fix a qoute code...)

 

[Natoma]

Thankfully joe, your bigoted lack of respect for my relationship is moot wrt the laws of this country. My lack of respect for your opinion is simply my opinion about your opinion on the subject.

There is a difference between being truly tolerant of people and insulting those same people with obviously disrespectful comparisons. What you call tolerance is nothing but thinly veiled venom towards homosexuals. You're so transparent it's almost pathetic.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Thankfully joe, your bigoted lack of respect for my relationship is moot wrt the laws of this country. My lack of respect for your opinion is simply my opinion about your opinion on the subject.

Right...like I said. You have a lack of respect for me and my opinions. It's not the other way around. Glad we've cleared that up.

There is a difference between being truly tolerant of people and insulting those same people with obviously disrespectful comparisons.

Agreed. There is also a difference between a comparison that YOU believe is overly disrespectful (because you read into it more than is stated), and a comparison that lays out certain facts. It's a comparison that helps explain why I disagree with homosexuality.

What you call tolerance is nothing but thinly veiled venom towards homosexuals. You're so transparent it's almost pathetic.

How exactly is my opinion about homosexuality "veiled" at all? Shall I sate my opinions in black and white for you again?

1) I do not have the same respect for homosexual relationships that I do of heterosexual relationships. (Note that I never said I have NO RESPECT for your relationship. Just not the same level of respect as hetero ones.)

2) I have respect for your right to enter into and have a homosexual relationship.

3) I have respect for your differing opinion relative to number 1. I just disagree with it.

So, what exactly is veiled in there?

What's pathetic, Natoma, is you making no bones about your lack of respect for my opinion, and then you have the gall to preach about tolerance?

Isn't the very definition of tolerance being accepting / respectful to a certain extent toward that which you don't agree with?

 

[Natoma]

Oh yes. Not the same level of respect for my relationship as for heterosexual relationships. Yea. The level is so low you easily compare my relationship to beastiality.

How tolerant you are.

And just so you know, it's a tad difficult to respect someone's opinions when they actually make that kind of comparison, and mean it, and especially try to back that comparison up with psuedo-logic. And you wonder why I don't have any respect for your opinions.

But I certainly completely and fully respect your relationship, despite the fact that the thought of you doing your wife utterly disgusts me (and no, I'm not being sarcastic or trying to be mean). But I wouldn't equate that with my disgust for beastiality.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh yes. Not the same level of respect for my relationship as for heterosexual relationships. Yea. The level is so low you easily compare my relationship to beastiality.

Of course, you realize that your train of thought here is really your personal problem? YOU are apparently violently repulsed by beastiality to the point where any comparison to it whatsoever makes you almost violent with rage.

Does that represent every person's view of beastiality? Or even my own? Again, you are just highlighting your own intolerance for anyone's view but your own.

For the record, I am MUCH, MUCH less respectful of beastiality than homosexuality on several levels. But I doubt that's any comfort to you. Considering that you fly off the handle at the mere implication that someone might try and actually compare the two in any way shape or form. (Such as both being what I consider to be "unnatural"....but let's not get into that debate again...)

How tolerant you are.

Yes, I am, thank you. In fact, I'd care to wager that I'm also more tolerant of beastiality than you are.

And just so you know, it's a tad difficult to respect someone's opinions when they actually make that kind of comparison, and mean it, and especially try to back that comparison up with psuedo-logic. And you wonder why I don't have any respect for your opinions.

As I said, you're the "typical" leftists that DOESN'T have respect for anyone's opinion except your own. It's the classic hypocritical nature of the "typical" leftist. You demand standards of others that you yourself will not adhere to. So no, I DON'T wonder why you lack respect for my opinions. That's anticipated behavior. I'm merely pointing out hypocricy of the the fact that you have no respect for it, yet claim I'm the one who's intolerant.

But I certainly completely and fully respect your relationship,

That's fine...though it is irrelevant to the point at hand.

...despite the fact that the thought of you doing your wife utterly disgusts me (and no, I'm not being sarcastic or trying to be mean). But I wouldn't equate that with my disgust for beastiality.

And I don't EQUATE beastiality with homosexuality either. But of course no matter how many times I repeat that statement, you seem to ignore it. Making a comparison on some level does not mean one is assigning equality.

And I see that as I guessed, you do have an apparent complete intolerance (disgust) for beastiailty as well.

 

[Natoma]

Oh yes, there's nothing wrong with comparing my relationship with another human being to someone's relationship with an animal.

I suppose if someone calls your wife a bitch I can make the case for you being in a beastial relationship as well right?

 

[Lezmaka]

I'm not trying to make an argument against same sex unions by using my religious beliefs. I have not once called upon the Bible for proof of my points; stated that gays are unnatural; or any of the other things you seem to think I have. I've simply stated that marriage is a religous construct, and therefor the government should stay the hell out of redefining it.

Shouldn't man/woman, man/man and woman/woman all be considered civil unions since marriage is a religious construct and the government shouldn't have any say about what marriage is and isn't because of separation of church and state? Or another way, marriage is religous so the government (federal, state, city, etc) should have no definition at all.

If the government only recognized civil unions for various benefits/penalties, would there be any difference between man/woman, man/man, woman/woman? What about polygamy?

Just kinda throwing ideas out there.

 

[Natoma]

I'm not trying to make an argument against same sex unions by using my religious beliefs. I have not once called upon the Bible for proof of my points; stated that gays are unnatural; or any of the other things you seem to think I have. I've simply stated that marriage is a religous construct, and therefor the government should stay the hell out of redefining it.

Shouldn't man/woman, man/man and woman/woman all be considered civil unions since marriage is a religious construct and the government shouldn't have any say about what marriage is and isn't because of separation of church and state? Or another way, marriage is religous so the government should have no definition at all.

Exactly. Leave marriage to the religious types. If you want federal recognition for your legal relationship, be it heterosexual or homosexual, then you should have to get a Civil Union. Marriage should be just like baptism or communion. A religious state that is given no legal status by the government.

That is of course if you consider Marriage to be a religious construct. If you don't consider it to be a religious construct, then that's fine as well. If that's the case, then there's no reason to deny gays the ability to marry, because gay relationships are legal in this country.

It's either or.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh yes, there's nothing wrong with comparing my relationship with another human being to someone's relationship with an animal.

There are LOTS of things wrong with EQUATING the two relationships. There's nothing wrong with comparisons as long as the reasoning and proper context is given. That way, the reasoning can be evaluated.

I suppose if someone calls your wife a bitch I can make the case for you being in a beastial relationship as well right?

You can make whatever case you want. Of course, that case you present is meaningless, and everyone would tell you that.

I suppose if I called either you or your partner a bitch, or ever said that you and your partner is in a beastiality relationship...you might be making some sort of relevant point right now, instead of just being utterly, well, stupid.

 

[Natoma]

There are LOTS of things wrong with EQUATING the two relationships.

Then don't do it, nor comparisons. I have that respect for your legal relationship, and anyone else's, even the legal relationships I sorely disagree with for my own personal reasons.

Case closed.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

There are LOTS of things wrong with EQUATING the two relationships.

Then don't do it, nor comparisons.

Sigh.

Equating = bad, assuming they are not equal, which they aren't.

Comparisons = useful, as long as the reasoning and proper context is given. That way, the reasoning can be evaluated.

Case closed.

I suppose that from this point forward, you'll stop making a comparison or analogy where the two items in question are not "equal." Because that would just continue to make you a hypocrite in light of your "equating = bad, therefore don't even make any comparisons" revelation.

Good luck with that.

I have that respect for your legal relationship, and anyone else's, even the legal relationships I sorely disagree with for my own personal reasons.

1) You don't have respect for my opinion. I have respect for yours.
2) You imply that you don't have respect for at least some non legal relationships.

So, is that one of your criteria for "respect?" The legality of it?

Given your logic, why should I even respect homosexual "unions/marriages", which are not broadly legal?

 

[Himself]

Erm, is there really a relationship between a human and an animal in beastiality? I would think you would only be comparing the congress, not the emotional attachment.

 

[Natoma]

Comparisons = useful, as long as the reasoning and proper context is given. That way, the reasoning can be evaluated.

Fine. Go out today and talk to any random couple on the street and say "Hey, I can make a comparison between your relationship and beastiality. Trust me, it's not equating it, just comparing for logical and reasonable purposes."

See if you don't end up on the concrete in 2 seconds..

Given your logic, why should I even respect homosexual "unions/marriages", which are not broadly legal?

My domestic partnership is legal, and even short of that, consensual homosexual sex is legal. End of story.

We're debating extending marital rights to homosexual unions. That's a completely different story.

[EDIT]

1) You don't have respect for my opinion. I have respect for yours.

I also don't have respect for the opinions of racists and male chauvanists, but that doesn't mean I don't respect their right to say what they think and express their opinion. I have complete and utter respect for your right to say what you think. That's guaranteed by our constitution. But do I respect the content of that opinion? Hell no. It's bigoted and hateful, and I do not respect that. But you can go ahead and say whatever idiotic thing that comes to mind. Bless this great country.

[/EDIT]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Fine. Go out today and talk to any random couple on the street and say "Hey, I can make a comparison between your relationship and beastiality. Trust me, it's not equating it, just comparing for logical and reasonable purposes."

See if you don't end up on the concrete in 2 seconds..

Whether or not I end up on the concrete depends on
1) How TOLERANT that random couple is of what might be an opposing viewpoint.

2) How reasonable and relevant my comparison is.

If the couple is anything like you, who is

1) Not tolerant
2) Doesn't consider or listen the context of the comparison at all and is simply disgusted at the mention of the two in the same sentnce,

Then they may try and put me to the concrete.

My domestic partnership is legal, and even short of that, consensual homosexual sex is legal. End of story.

Your domestic partnership is not legally recognized as marriage in most states. So if I take your approach and logic, I'd say that "since you can't be legally married in most states, then I don't have respect for you."

End of story.

We're debating extending marital rights to homosexual unions. That's a completely different story.

Yes, they are two different stories. Marital "rights" (same rights as those ARE legally recongized as "married"), vs. actually being married.

I also don't have respect for the opinions of racists and male chauvanists, but that doesn't mean I don't respect their right to say what they think and express their opinion. I have complete and utter respect for your right to say what you think. That's guaranteed by our constitution. But do I respect the content of that opinion? Hell no.

Exactly. You are not tolerant of it at all, despite your "demand" that we be tolerant of you. Thanks for reiterating my point yet again.

It's bigoted and hateful, and I do not respect that. But you can go ahead and say whatever idiotic thing that comes to mind. Bless this great country.

Indeed.

 

[Natoma]

Keep trying to apply some psuedo logic to your bigotry Joe. The KKK dragon members I see on TV do the same thing at their rallies. Male chauvanists will do the same thing in trying to justify their bigotry. Hell, you even had a "scientific" book by the name of "The Bell Curve" that tried to justify bigoted claims that darker skinned peoples were intellectually inferior. I've tried reasoning with you as an intelligent human being, but frankly that has been to no avail. At this point you're nothing but a waste of my time.

If anyone else has anything intelligent to add or respond to, then I'll respond.

 

[RussSchultz]

Natoma, you're being horribly thick headed over this insistance that Joe is calling homosexuality equavalent to beastiality, even when he insists it isn't. (And its pretty plain to me that he isn't, either)



I guess I'm a bigoted racist then, also.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Keep trying to apply some psuedo logic to your bigotry Joe. The KKK dragon members I see on TV do the same thing at their rallies. Male chauvanists will do the same thing in trying to justify their bigotry

Lol...Now you are equating me to the KKK, male chauvanists, etc? The hypocricy contiues..."try going up to a random person and comparing them to the KKK, and see if you don't hit the concrete."

Hell, you even had a "scientific" book by the name of "The Bell Curve" that tried to justify bigoted claims that darker skinned peoples were intellectually inferior.

Keep bringing up irrelevant references Natoma, it's apparently what you do best. At least, you do it in large quantities, I guess that counts for something?

I've tried reasoning with you as an intelligent human being, but frankly that has been to no avail. At this point you're nothing but a waste of my time.

I've had quite a fun time watching the "tolerant leftist" spew intolerance and hatred. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Natoma]

Not in this thread, but certainly in other threads Russ.